That means you're saying people only have a valuable opinion or can provide useful information if they're willing to pay you to listen to them. What a dangerous attitude.
Besides that, there are thousands of free web hosts just because you know the names of 10 or so of the largest doesn't mean you aren't visiting others.
honestly, it's not even worth it. The providers of most of these "free web hosting" accounts load each "free" site with popups and advertisements. That alone will make me stay away from those sites.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Free markets are often unstable and quickly revert to monopolies if unregulated. That's one of the reasons why markets like the NY and London stock exchanges have to be carefully regulated and policed
I think regulations should be in place if a monopoly is formed through strongarming the competition. I do, however, think it is wrong for a government to get involved with a monopoly that occurs through popularity (naturally).
Without this sort of "complete bullshit" regulation, practically everything you buy would be more expensive and less good. Like I said, all of us benefit when government intervenes to support competitive markets
with the cellphone example you gave: yes. With software: no. The difference is clear: people have a choice with software, they did not with the cell phone example. When they have a choice (but are too lazy and or do not want to put the time into switching), the government should not be involved.
Again you have missed my point. There are no barriers stopping you buying Pepsi instead. You can try it and decide if you like it. Software is different. People often choose not to switch to software that will save them time and effort in the long run because they have invested time and effort in learning their current software. It can take weeks to adjust to a better product. This is a very understandable form of Ludditism, but it stifles growth and progress in the software industry and is an anti-competitive force. As such it harms all users of software and all producers of software except the entrenched.
Unless software only consisted of pushing two buttons, it will always take time and effort to learn it. This is just the nature of software, and a lock-in is not something a business can really decide (it all depends on the savvyness of the user).
In the UK the cell network providers used to maintain the anti-competitive barrier of forcing each user to change her telephone number if she changed network. The telcoms regulator stepped in and stopped this. All networks suddenly became a lot cheaper and the market grew.
This is different. It would be impossible for a user to keep their phone mumber. With software, if you really wanted to, you could change to another program (such as switching from microsoft office to open office).
Software usage contains an even higher intrinsic competition barrier. Regulators should be encouraging progress in the software industry by incentivising crossgrade
Regulations of this sort are complete bullshit. If people are too lazy to switch to another product, a company selling them the software shouldn't have to help. It does not take that much time and effort to switch to something else, I do it all the time.
I think, before anything else, software patents need to be regulated.
Prices of meatspace products do decrease in line with the cost of production and supply
I believe in the free market. If a company wants to charge $5000 per copy of their newest application, the market will set the price (people will either pay for it or the company will be forced to decrease their prices). If selling software on a per-copy basis was not profitable, companies would no longer do it. Almost every software application in the world has an alternative that you could use instead (which may or may not be cheaper).
The monopolies in the software and music industries, and the abusive international copyright laws allow these companies to screw programmers, musicians and consumers through pricing which fails to reflect the underlying economics
a decrease in product price would equal a decrease in paychecks (for programmers and musicians).
Ideally, competitive forces would drive down prices so the vendor would benefit from adjusting her prices down when possible, but the problem is lock-in. Changing tea supplier is easy, but nobody wants to switch to new software, even when it's demonstrably better. Regulators guarantee competition in most markets, so why shouldn't they encourage competition in software by adding incentives to software migration? Call it a 'crossgrade rebate'
welcome to the world of business. Every successful company in the world tries to lock you into their product. In many cases, it is just a matter of what a person prefers (I think coke is better than pepsi, but you may think otherwise).
But it seems only reasonable to argue that once profit is reached, then the more copies are sold, the cheaper those copies should become, for the benefit of all.
This sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't happen in any other business, so why is software so special? and what amount of profit needs to be reached?
That's a good thing. Are you suggesting that worth decreases with value? Ideally the price should reflect the decreasing cost of production, rather than the inappropriate notion of scarcity of resources. In other words, since the cost of distributing copies is so tiny compared to the work of authorship, the price of software licenses should, to an extent, follow the value of the work done by the author PER COPY. The ten millionth copy sold should cost an awful lot less than the first. This way everyone benefits, not just Elton and Bill.
if it costs $10,000,000 to create/produce, does that mean the first copy should cost 1,000,000? (and decrease as more copies are sold?)
you are forgetting the money, time, and effort that went into the first copy. It may cost $0 to replicate a piece of software, but it wasn't created out of thin air.
In fact, the main difference is that stealing hurts the owner because the owner no longer has the item, while copyright infringement, assuming you would not have bought the program either way, hurts nobody at all.
it's worse, because it decreases the value of the product over time. It's similar to money inflation
There is a lot of finance talk going on in this article, but the conclusion he comes to is one that many of us already know: commercial Open Source creates a market for support and maintenance. Article might be good for corporate types wondering why licenses cost nothing over here
no licensing fee to a company also means there isn't anyone thaey can blame when something goes wrong. This is why commerical applications are used.
This business practice makes sense for the distributor...he makes a profit whether he is selling to a regular store or 'pirate' (a slimmer margin when he sells to the 'pirate'). And we all know the material cost for producing a DVD.
for a blank one, it's the price of a DVD. For one that actually has content on it (like a movie), the price is a lot higher.
When Longhorn will come out, will you say W2003 was shit too?
no. I might say: "longhorn is more secure than windows 2003", but this is the nature of software (and many other types of technology): it evolves and gets better over time. It would just show me that Microsoft is learning from their mistakes.
You said that w2k not good. You said that XP was not good. You said NT was not good. That's by your *own* admission my friend.
it's called an opinion, and everyone has one. You can either choose to use or not use windows, it doesn't matter to me. I was just describing the experiences that I have had in the past (and the ones I currently have).
If i told someone publicly that W2k was not that good in 2001. Was i spreading FUD? No?
by what you are saying, FUD does not exist. when microsoft executives say that the gnu license is like a virus or that linux is less secure than windows, it's merely their opinion, no?
I grant you that. Software is improved. But sendmail, bind and mysql aren't charging me license fee after license fee to get the security and stability i should have. That's my point since the start of this discussion.
so it's not alright because you have to pay licensing fees?
It seems MS fanboys always praise the latest as the greatest hence the time warp i put on your comment.
anti-MS fanboys have a habit of spreading FUD about Microsoft products.
take a look at the past versions of linux and then get back to me. Comparing them to the versions of today show you that something can improve considerably over time. Sendmail, bind, and mysql are also good examples.
All jokes aside, SP1 broke my fibre network card teaming drivers, and I had to wait for HP to release a SP1 compatible driver. But of course, I wouldn't know what I'm talking about, right?
I've had the experience running windows 2003 with multiple companies running more servers than that in a single company, but I wouldn't know what I was talking about either..right?
You have one example, which has little effect on the overall stability of windows 2003. Every operating system at one time or another will have an incompatiblity issue with hardware.
Ouch, you hit him where it hurts. The round.. nay, the game goes to: belar77!
kz45 loses his Microsoft Certified Astroturfer certificate!
The crowd goes wild!
the open source community doesn't ever seem to learn from its mistakes (and this is why linux is not being used as a desktop platform over microsoft products). It's comments like these that make me run away from open source as fast as I can.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2000 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT and 98, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2000 is actually very stable.
Before 2000:
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running NT 4.0 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT 3.51 and 95, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows Nt 4.0 is actually very stable. and so on..
no I wouldn't. You didn't read my post (I said: 2000 and XP are a different story). I have had a lot of problems with both 2000 and NT in the past, but 2003 has been by far the most stable and seemingly secure).
Windows 2003? That breaks when you install it? Or breaks when you apply a hotfix? Or breaks when you reboot it? (blue screens and dumps) Or breaks when you add new hardware? Or... Well... You get the idea.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2003 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2003 is actually very stable.
women are more social beings than men. This is most likely why they do not enjoy careers where they will be coding all day long, alone.
the same can be said about elementary education and nursing for men.
I can't believe you said "minorities". This almost smells like a troll. In my CS classes, 80% are considered "minorities", which in reality, makes me the minority.
A 9 year old can pass a mickeysoft exam. Their software has a ton of wizards and there are still admins out there who have no f**king clue how to run their windows server boxes.
*sigh*
this can be said about a lot of things. I know people who are graduating this year with a degree in computer science and don't know what an IP address is.
there are also admins that are intelligent that get these certifications because they want to increase their worth in the computer industry.
Not to incite a flame war or anything, but to me, a 10 year-old kid getting their MS certification somewhat devalues the certification (see, it's so easy that a kid can get it). True, she may be an incredibly gifted child, but pointing and clicking in MS Word is hardly a brain drain.
well, there are 10 year olds that can ace college calculus classes. Does it make it any easier?
I'm getting tired hearing this false argument over and over. To run something in Linux that can potentially damage the system you need to log in as root. To run a virus you need to submit root password which is pretty different from what happens in Windows (by the way can you run Windows as restricted user? Many programs just refuse to work, I think that restricted user account is useless, most of the people I know run Windows as Administrator, only that and makes a big difference.)
Remember also that Linux has a big share on servers, and still there are not as many worms like Red Code and alike that bug Windows
among hackers and script kiddies (and many slashdotters), microsoft is the enemy. This is one of main reasons there are so many worms/viruses for the windows platform. Another reason is that a large percentage of the Internet is using windows, including people that are very likely to click on a link. When a large percentage of non tech-savvy people are using linux, it will have many of the same issues that windows has today.
Remember also that Linux has a big share on servers, and still there are not as many worms like Red Code and alike that bug Windows
There was a patch for code red, weeks before it started spreading. Many worms can be stopped through smarter sysadmins. Microsoft did its job.
1. I never heard anybody switching from Linux to Windows to get more security. NOT ONE!
mostly because of FUD. Previous versions of windows may have been insecure, but windows 2003 is pretty rock solid.
2. Many people that are switching from Windows to Linux are doing it for better security
People switching from windows to linux because of security have a false sense of security. Linux or windows un-patched/not updated will each have their own security issues.
Linux may not have as many worms/viruses, but that's only because it is not a target (not because it's more secure). Which ever operating system is the most popular will have the most people trying to attack it.
This is actually good for security in the long run because windows is constantly tested and fixes/patches are released.
That's only the case if you assume that every copy=one real customer lost. Back when I was into the warez scene, I had intalled and deleted hundreds of games/utils/applications. Some within minutes after muttering "this is bogus".
one copy may not equal one real customer lost, but it does devalue the software over time as piracy increases. When enough people think that they can just get something for free, they will most likely not pay for it (it's human nature. Free is usually better than !free, and im talking about beer).
If someone had totalled up the number of applications, utils, and games, there is no way I could have even afforded 10 percent of that. (I actually did buy what I liked, but to put me on the figurative hook for half-hour glances at packages, well, that's dumb).
for half-hour glances, no. If it's something that you actually use, yes.
All that is totally ignoring the _fact_ that various companies who shall remain nameless depended on warez to gain marketshare *cough* autocad *cough* Windows
Marketshare where where a company is getting no profit (IE everyone is using it for free) is not desirable. Look at the free software movement as an example. To get better marketshare, the FSF could just allow companies to use GNU software in proprietary applications (without releasing any of the source or crediting the authors). This isn't allowed, however, because it would be against the wishes of the license (and the developers).
Thank Gh0d for Open Source. Everything is legit now, and kicking back some cash gives a warm fuzzy feeling, rather than the feeling of being ripped off. It's been that way for almost a decade now, and I like it
If you download trials of proprietary applications, you won't feel ripped off.
With most proprietary software, you cannot even test-drive it.
you're wrong. Most proprietary software applications have a trial (usually for 30 days). It sounds to me like you are trying to justify your actions with a bullshit excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
That means you're saying people only have a valuable opinion or can provide useful information if they're willing to pay you to listen to them. What a dangerous attitude.
Besides that, there are thousands of free web hosts just because you know the names of 10 or so of the largest doesn't mean you aren't visiting others.
honestly, it's not even worth it. The providers of most of these "free web hosting" accounts load each "free" site with popups and advertisements. That alone will make me stay away from those sites.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Free markets are often unstable and quickly revert to monopolies if unregulated. That's one of the reasons why markets like the NY and London stock exchanges have to be carefully regulated and policed
I think regulations should be in place if a monopoly is formed through strongarming the competition. I do, however, think it is wrong for a government to get involved with a monopoly that occurs through popularity (naturally).
Without this sort of "complete bullshit" regulation, practically everything you buy would be more expensive and less good. Like I said, all of us benefit when government intervenes to support competitive markets
with the cellphone example you gave: yes. With software: no. The difference is clear: people have a choice with software, they did not with the cell phone example. When they have a choice (but are too lazy and or do not want to put the time into switching), the government should not be involved.
Again you have missed my point. There are no barriers stopping you buying Pepsi instead. You can try it and decide if you like it. Software is different. People often choose not to switch to software that will save them time and effort in the long run because they have invested time and effort in learning their current software. It can take weeks to adjust to a better product. This is a very understandable form of Ludditism, but it stifles growth and progress in the software industry and is an anti-competitive force. As such it harms all users of software and all producers of software except the entrenched.
Unless software only consisted of pushing two buttons, it will always take time and effort to learn it. This is just the nature of software, and a lock-in is not something a business can really decide (it all depends on the savvyness of the user).
In the UK the cell network providers used to maintain the anti-competitive barrier of forcing each user to change her telephone number if she changed network. The telcoms regulator stepped in and stopped this. All networks suddenly became a lot cheaper and the market grew.
This is different. It would be impossible for a user to keep their phone mumber. With software, if you really wanted to, you could change to another program (such as switching from microsoft office to open office).
Software usage contains an even higher intrinsic competition barrier. Regulators should be encouraging progress in the software industry by incentivising crossgrade
Regulations of this sort are complete bullshit. If people are too lazy to switch to another product, a company selling them the software shouldn't have to help. It does not take that much time and effort to switch to something else, I do it all the time.
I think, before anything else, software patents need to be regulated.
Prices of meatspace products do decrease in line with the cost of production and supply
I believe in the free market. If a company wants to charge $5000 per copy of their newest application, the market will set the price (people will either pay for it or the company will be forced to decrease their prices). If selling software on a per-copy basis was not profitable, companies would no longer do it. Almost every software application in the world has an alternative that you could use instead (which may or may not be cheaper).
The monopolies in the software and music industries, and the abusive international copyright laws allow these companies to screw programmers, musicians and consumers through pricing which fails to reflect the underlying economics
a decrease in product price would equal a decrease in paychecks (for programmers and musicians).
Ideally, competitive forces would drive down prices so the vendor would benefit from adjusting her prices down when possible, but the problem is lock-in. Changing tea supplier is easy, but nobody wants to switch to new software, even when it's demonstrably better. Regulators guarantee competition in most markets, so why shouldn't they encourage competition in software by adding incentives to software migration? Call it a 'crossgrade rebate'
welcome to the world of business. Every successful company in the world tries to lock you into their product. In many cases, it is just a matter of what a person prefers (I think coke is better than pepsi, but you may think otherwise).
But it seems only reasonable to argue that once profit is reached, then the more copies are sold, the cheaper those copies should become, for the benefit of all.
This sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't happen in any other business, so why is software so special? and what amount of profit needs to be reached?
That's a good thing. Are you suggesting that worth decreases with value? Ideally the price should reflect the decreasing cost of production, rather than the inappropriate notion of scarcity of resources. In other words, since the cost of distributing copies is so tiny compared to the work of authorship, the price of software licenses should, to an extent, follow the value of the work done by the author PER COPY. The ten millionth copy sold should cost an awful lot less than the first. This way everyone benefits, not just Elton and Bill.
if it costs $10,000,000 to create/produce, does that mean the first copy should cost 1,000,000? (and decrease as more copies are sold?)
you are forgetting the money, time, and effort that went into the first copy. It may cost $0 to replicate a piece of software, but it wasn't created out of thin air.
In fact, the main difference is that stealing hurts the owner because the owner no longer has the item, while copyright infringement, assuming you would not have bought the program either way, hurts nobody at all.
it's worse, because it decreases the value of the product over time. It's similar to money inflation
There is a lot of finance talk going on in this article, but the conclusion he comes to is one that many of us already know: commercial Open Source creates a market for support and maintenance. Article might be good for corporate types wondering why licenses cost nothing over here
no licensing fee to a company also means there isn't anyone thaey can blame when something goes wrong. This is why commerical applications are used.
This business practice makes sense for the distributor...he makes a profit whether he is selling to a regular store or 'pirate' (a slimmer margin when he sells to the 'pirate'). And we all know the material cost for producing a DVD.
for a blank one, it's the price of a DVD. For one that actually has content on it (like a movie), the price is a lot higher.
When Longhorn will come out, will you say W2003 was shit too?
no. I might say: "longhorn is more secure than windows 2003", but this is the nature of software (and many other types of technology): it evolves and gets better over time. It would just show me that Microsoft is learning from their mistakes.
You said that w2k not good. You said that XP was not good. You said NT was not good. That's by your *own* admission my friend.
it's called an opinion, and everyone has one. You can either choose to use or not use windows, it doesn't matter to me. I was just describing the experiences that I have had in the past (and the ones I currently have).
If i told someone publicly that W2k was not that good in 2001. Was i spreading FUD? No?
by what you are saying, FUD does not exist. when microsoft executives say that the gnu license is like a virus or that linux is less secure than windows, it's merely their opinion, no?
I grant you that. Software is improved. But sendmail, bind and mysql aren't charging me license fee after license fee to get the security and stability i should have. That's my point since the start of this discussion.
so it's not alright because you have to pay licensing fees?
It seems MS fanboys always praise the latest as the greatest hence the time warp i put on your comment.
anti-MS fanboys have a habit of spreading FUD about Microsoft products.
take a look at the past versions of linux and then get back to me. Comparing them to the versions of today show you that something can improve considerably over time. Sendmail, bind, and mysql are also good examples.
All jokes aside, SP1 broke my fibre network card teaming drivers, and I had to wait for HP to release a SP1 compatible driver. But of course, I wouldn't know what I'm talking about, right?
I've had the experience running windows 2003 with multiple companies running more servers than that in a single company, but I wouldn't know what I was talking about either..right?
You have one example, which has little effect on the overall stability of windows 2003. Every operating system at one time or another will have an incompatiblity issue with hardware.
Ouch, you hit him where it hurts. The round.. nay, the game goes to: belar77!
kz45 loses his Microsoft Certified Astroturfer certificate!
The crowd goes wild!
the open source community doesn't ever seem to learn from its mistakes (and this is why linux is not being used as a desktop platform over microsoft products). It's comments like these that make me run away from open source as fast as I can.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2000 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT and 98, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2000 is actually very stable.
Before 2000:
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running NT 4.0 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT 3.51 and 95, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows Nt 4.0 is actually very stable. and so on..
no I wouldn't. You didn't read my post (I said: 2000 and XP are a different story). I have had a lot of problems with both 2000 and NT in the past, but 2003 has been by far the most stable and seemingly secure).
Windows 2003? That breaks when you install it? Or breaks when you apply a hotfix?
Or breaks when you reboot it? (blue screens and dumps)
Or breaks when you add new hardware?
Or... Well... You get the idea.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2003 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2003 is actually very stable.
http://www.schoolworkshare.com/
are you the guy that owns this site? I saw your post about losing all of your data on the phBB bulletin boards.
This is especially true with women and minorities
women are more social beings than men. This is most likely why they do not enjoy careers where they will be coding all day long, alone.
the same can be said about elementary education and nursing for men.
I can't believe you said "minorities". This almost smells like a troll. In my CS classes, 80% are considered "minorities", which in reality, makes me the minority.
A 9 year old can pass a mickeysoft exam. Their software has a ton of wizards and there are still admins out there who have no f**king clue how to run their windows server boxes.
*sigh*
this can be said about a lot of things. I know people who are graduating this year with a degree in computer science and don't know what an IP address is.
there are also admins that are intelligent that get these certifications because they want to increase their worth in the computer industry.
Not to incite a flame war or anything, but to me, a 10 year-old kid getting their MS certification somewhat devalues the certification (see, it's so easy that a kid can get it). True, she may be an incredibly gifted child, but pointing and clicking in MS Word is hardly a brain drain.
well, there are 10 year olds that can ace college calculus classes. Does it make it any easier?
Ah, you mean like this!
Limiting searches makes the numbers a lot less exciting, doesn't it?
I was merely pointing out that windows isn't the only operating system with vulnerabilities.
I'm getting tired hearing this false argument over and over. To run something in Linux that can potentially damage the system you need to log in as root. To run a virus you need to submit root password which is pretty different from what happens in Windows (by the way can you run Windows as restricted user? Many programs just refuse to work, I think that restricted user account is useless, most of the people I know run Windows as Administrator, only that and makes a big difference.)
Remember also that Linux has a big share on servers, and still there are not as many worms like Red Code and alike that bug Windows
among hackers and script kiddies (and many slashdotters), microsoft is the enemy. This is one of main reasons there are so many worms/viruses for the windows platform. Another reason is that a large percentage of the Internet is using windows, including people that are very likely to click on a link. When a large percentage of non tech-savvy people are using linux, it will have many of the same issues that windows has today.
Remember also that Linux has a big share on servers, and still there are not as many worms like Red Code and alike that bug Windows
There was a patch for code red, weeks before it started spreading. Many worms can be stopped through smarter sysadmins. Microsoft did its job.
Riight. Like this?
Go on, pull the other one. Windows is just as leaky as it's ever been.
no, like this
oh, and btw, microsoft offered has had a fix for those issues for at least a week now.
1. I never heard anybody switching from Linux to Windows to get more security. NOT ONE!
mostly because of FUD. Previous versions of windows may have been insecure, but windows 2003 is pretty rock solid.
2. Many people that are switching from Windows to Linux are doing it for better security
People switching from windows to linux because of security have a false sense of security. Linux or windows un-patched/not updated will each have their own security issues.
Linux may not have as many worms/viruses, but that's only because it is not a target (not because it's more secure). Which ever operating system is the most popular will have the most people trying to attack it.
This is actually good for security in the long run because windows is constantly tested and fixes/patches are released.
That's only the case if you assume that every copy=one real customer lost. Back when I was into the warez scene, I had intalled and deleted hundreds of games/utils/applications. Some within minutes after muttering "this is bogus".
one copy may not equal one real customer lost, but it does devalue the software over time as piracy increases. When enough people think that they can just get something for free, they will most likely not pay for it (it's human nature. Free is usually better than !free, and im talking about beer).
If someone had totalled up the number of applications, utils, and games, there is no way I could have even afforded 10 percent of that. (I actually did buy what I liked, but to put me on the figurative hook for half-hour glances at packages, well, that's dumb).
for half-hour glances, no. If it's something that you actually use, yes.
All that is totally ignoring the _fact_ that various companies who shall remain nameless depended on warez to gain marketshare *cough* autocad *cough* Windows
Marketshare where where a company is getting no profit (IE everyone is using it for free) is not desirable. Look at the free software movement as an example. To get better marketshare, the FSF could just allow companies to use GNU software in proprietary applications (without releasing any of the source or crediting the authors). This isn't allowed, however, because it would be against the wishes of the license (and the developers).
Thank Gh0d for Open Source. Everything is legit now, and kicking back some cash gives a warm fuzzy feeling, rather than the feeling of being ripped off. It's been that way for almost a decade now, and I like it
If you download trials of proprietary applications, you won't feel ripped off.
With most proprietary software, you cannot even test-drive it.
you're wrong. Most proprietary software applications have a trial (usually for 30 days). It sounds to me like you are trying to justify your actions with a bullshit excuse.